Dev Journal: Experiential Unit Design

Dev Journal: Experiential Unit Design

Experiential unit design is the realm of making units and other game components feel different from each other, players have to think completely differently about Siege Tanks and Zerglings because of good experiential unit design. It may sound like a simple topic, but many RTS games have failed due to not executing it properly, resulting in a bland game where unit control is unsatisfying. Today I'll be exploring examples of superb experiential unit design from a few of my favorite RTS franchises, including Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation.

Command and Conquer

In Command & Conquer games, players control a variety of units ranging from infantry, tanks, motor bikes and aircraft. These different unit types have large stat differences such as tanks being tough, infantry being cheap and aircraft being fast, but that's only part of the picture. It's important that units have unique properties to distinguish them in ways which are more interesting than just stat differences. For example, aircraft have limited ammunition and need to land on the airfield to be replenished, tanks can crush, and infantry can garrison neutral structures or be loaded up in transports.

Experiential design can also be cosmetic, the Telsa Coil in Red Alert has nothing fun about it from a gameplay perspective, yet it's so cool because the weapon effect is totally unique to anything else in the game. (Until the introduction of Telsa Tanks & Tesla Troopers.) If it's not possible to make something unique through experiential gameplay design, giving it a unique style and effects can achieve a similar result.

StarCraft

StarCraft combines melee and ranged combat which creates a wide variance between the unit types. Due to the ranged/melee attacks and various properties of Marines and Zerglings, players have to think tactically about how and when to engage. Playing with Marines forces players to think about how to minimize surface area and forcing the enemy to engage in choke points. Siege Tanks and High Templars both provide powerful area of effect damage, but those units are used and thought about in incredibly different ways. Siege Tanks need to deploy in a stationary mode to fire, but High Templars have limited energy that is required to cast a spell. Units can perform similar roles but while being thought about in unique ways.

Company of Heroes

Company of Heroes is a much smaller scale RTS and consequently has many tactical mechanics that vary between infantry and vehicles. You need to interact with the battlefield in different ways depending on which units you're using, infantry position themselves behind directional cover for protection while tanks roll over cover. Roads should be avoided by infantry because it provides negative cover while vehicles receive a speed bonus. Other iconic Company of Heroes mechanics only apply to certain unit types which also helps make those units viscerally feel the way they are supposed to.

When Infantry receive machine gun fire they become suppressed which heavily reduces their movement and combat capabilities. Relic could have decided to have tanks also debuffed from all machine gun fire which buttons up the tank crew and limits their sight, but doing so would have ruined the emotive feelings associated with those unit types. Infantry are brought to life and made to feel vulnerable through the dynamic movement as they automatically weave in and out of cover then drop to a crawl when machine gun fire goes their way, meanwhile tanks feel destructive and tough as they crush everything in their path and have thick armor that negates all small caliber bullets. A tank wouldn't feel like a tank if you could destroy it with small arms fire.

Supreme Commander

Large scale RTS games make experiential design more difficult to implement because there's little focus on micro-management and abilities. Supreme Commander still manages to have some variance on gameplay mechanics design such as Cybran naval ships being able to traverse land, but the main way Supreme Commander makes units feel varied is by having large differences to the stats and creative art design. The UEF Fatboy could be viewed as an equivalent to the Seraphim Ythotha as they're both experimental ground units, but the Fatboy is very different. Not only can it produce units, it also has long range and splash damage compared to the powerful single target weapons.

Unlike the Fatboy, the Cybran Spiderbot has practically an identical role and weaponry to the Ythotha, so how does it still manage to feel unique? The Spiderbot, as the name suggests, resembles a Spider with its six legs giving it a different feeling of locomotion, albeit only at a cosmetic level. The Ythotha and Aeon Galactic Collosus are even more similar as they're both bipedal walkers, and yet they still manage to feel different from each other. The Galactic Collosus has a single deadly laser weapon that makes up almost all of its DPS, while the Ythotha has three separate weapons that each share roughly a third of the overall DPS. The Galactic Collosus also has Tractor Claws which sucks up nearby low tier units, and while the overall DPS of the Tractor Claws is largely insignificant, it looks cool and is a unique weapon which makes it feel different to use.

Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation.

Experiential design is equally a challenge in Ashes of the Singularity: Escalation due to the large scale, and creating vastly different appearances can be expensive from a development perspective. One of the methods for implementing experiential unit design in Ashes is veterancy that only applies to high tier units, and in differing ways. Almost all RTS games that feature veterancy handle it in the same way for every unit type. In Ashes only the dreadnoughts and juggernauts (Tier 3 & 4) units have veterancy which makes them feel more important, separating them from the expendable low tier units.

The dreadnought upgrades achieved through veterancy are unique for each dreadnought type, which refines their role by providing them with new bonuses or weaponry. Juggernauts also have veterancy, but it's applied very differently. When juggernauts level up, they automatically receive a small stat bonus which can be applied infinitely; there's no limit to how many times juggernauts can level up which makes them feel more like ultimate late game tools. Unlike juggernauts, dreadnought upgrades can provide bonuses to an army lead by a dreadnought, which adds to their role of being designed to lead armies.

Conclusion

Experiential unit design is one of the most crucial components of making an RTS game fun. Differences to stats and cosmetics is a crucial part of experiential variance, but a more interesting approach requires unique properties and mechanics. Players should think about different unit types in different ways, else an RTS game becomes bland with all the units blurred together.

Yes, i have to say, experimental units add a very uniqe feeling to all RTS-s what use them. Sadly, there are only a handful of them.

But you missed only one RTS , what contains Experimental units ( well its more on less based on entirely on experimental units),

and that is a Hungarian RTS made in 2007, named WarFront: Turning Point. Its an alternative WW2 RTS(slightly mediocre), similar to C&C Generals, but most units based on the "What if.." trope, and especially in the Germans, its good to see some experimentals, that didn't make it to the fields in the real life( MAUS Heavy tanks, Exoskeleton, etc.)

Without trolling too much about small, medium, and large oblong units that all slide slowly along the ground and then go *zap* (ahem)...

I would rather suggest that the most significant "experiential" distinction in Ashes would probably rest between the air and ground units -- these FEEL quite different, and definitely act very different.

Meh, It is what it is.

Ashes is still an incredibly good and fun game, even though a lot of the units DO feel quite similar.

There is something to be said for subtlety, I guess.

... which is not to say I wouldn't love to "feel" more distinction in a more pronounced way...

A boy can dream.

In fact, I'm betting there would be huge value in this, if Ashes decides to adopt more of it.

Yes, i have to say, experimental units add a very uniqe feeling to all RTS-s what use them. Sadly, there are only a handful of them.

But you missed only one RTS , what contains Experimental units ( well its more on less based on entirely on experimental units),

and that is a Hungarian RTS made in 2007, named WarFront: Turning Point. Its an alternative WW2 RTS(slightly mediocre), similar to C&C Generals, but most units based on the "What if.." trope, and especially in the Germans, its good to see some experimentals, that didn't make it to the fields in the real life( MAUS Heavy tanks, Exoskeleton, etc.)

I remember playing demo of the WarFront. Germans had a massive airship if i remember correctly. It was decentish game, certainly very professionally done, but in the end, it IMO lacked something extra.

Anyway, the article was not about EXPERIMENTAL units, but EXPERIENTAL unit design. Not being native speaker, I misread it too at first, LOL. And without reading the article and having context, i would not even know, what its meant to mean.

BTW, regarding the part of the CnC bombers returning to the base for reload, this is exactly what Ashes bombers should do. Just having them endlessly circling the skies, throwing occasional bomb, unless something shoots them down, is so boring. Just makes planes glorified flying tanks or straight up gunships. They sucked in SupCom too, for this very reason. The need to return to reload is exactly the thing which made them in games line CnC unique, believable and fun. Its not like you could not set them up to return to bombard certain places via waypoints.

Oh, and Cybran walking ships were utter BS too. Especially in SC2, where all of them could walk. Instead of trying to make naval gameplay unique, the devs decided to blur the difference between land and water. If you plan something like that for future Ashes navies, dont even bother.

BTW, regarding the part of the CnC bombers returning to the base for reload, this is exactly what Ashes bombers should do. Just having them endlessly circling the skies, throwing occasional bomb, unless something shoots them down, is so boring. Just makes planes glorified flying tanks or straight up gunships. They sucked in SupCom too, for this very reason. The need to return to reload is exactly the thing which made them in games line CnC unique, believable and fun. Its not like you could not set them up to return to bombard certain places via waypoints.

But Tim, you miss one point.

It was Ok in CNC to bombers carry a fixed amount of bombs, and they needed to return the base to reload, but because the game itself plays in the MODERN era, where warfare is similar... But we are talking about the FUTURE, where warfare is entirely different. In Ashes and SupCom, the units created from particles (metal, radioactive, mass, energy, godknowsonlywhat, etc...) at much faster speed than nowadays planes. And they CAN carry protocrafter/nanowelder/heck knows equipment , what can craft almost endless ammunition, so the reload/refuel sequence is pretty useless at least in Ashes. In SupCom , planes do have(at least non - experimental, Soul Rippers and CZAR-s can fly an infinite amount of time, given their sheer size, they carry all equipment for self-sustain themselfs..) fuel, and when they ran out of juice, they are DRASTICALLY slow down, making an easy target to the enemy..

Oh, and Cybran walking ships were utter BS too. Especially in SC2, where all of them could walk. Instead of trying to make naval gameplay unique, the devs decided to blur the difference between land and water. If you plan something like that for future Ashes navies, dont even bother.

Dont mention SC2! It doesn't exists! We all know that "game" was a HUGE letdown , even compared to No Man's Sky... I played a lot of with that garbage, but without mods, it was not really enjoyable, not mentioning to it suffers the same as SC1, when you build a tons of units, the game drastically slows down, until a point to become unplayable(because it only can use 1 core, unlike Ashes...)

I remember playing demo of the WarFront. Germans had a massive airship if i remember correctly. It was decentish game, certainly very professionally done, but in the end, it IMO lacked something extra.

I played the whole game through the end, the German missions was good, but i didn't bothered with the Americans or the Soviets... Only the Germans felt unique, the others was worse than the "meh" category... And yes, because the publisher WANTED a C&C style game, Digital Reality(who lacked funds at that time), the developer couldn't unfold their REAL ideas, so they created a mediocre RTS instead something unique they wanted to do. This is a sad reality. If you played their most succesful game "Imperium Galactica II", then you know what I mean. That game was HELLUVA AWESOME in its time (1999), only Homeworld and Starcraft was better in the futuristic RTS section..

It was Ok in CNC to bombers carry a fixed amount of bombs, and they needed to return the base to reload, but because the game itself plays in the MODERN era, where warfare is similar... But we are talking about the FUTURE, where warfare is entirely different. In Ashes and SupCom, the units created from particles (metal, radioactive, mass, energy, godknowsonlywhat, etc...) at much faster speed than nowadays planes. And they CAN carry protocrafter/nanowelder/heck knows equipment , what can craft almost endless ammunition, so the reload/refuel sequence is pretty useless at least in Ashes. In SupCom , planes do have(at least non - experimental, Soul Rippers and CZAR-s can fly an infinite amount of time, given their sheer size, they carry all equipment for self-sustain themselfs..) fuel, and when they ran out of juice, they are DRASTICALLY slow down, making an easy target to the enemy..

I am not missing anything. If its better choice gameplay-wise for the bombers to need to return to reload (which i believe it is, even in macro-centered game like Ashes, the whole process of repeating bombing runs just needs to be made automated, similar to air transports automatically pinging between factories and frontline, transporting newly produced units there), then it should be done, and you just find whatever excuse is needed to, later.

How do you expect them justify naval units in the game now, with your mindset, btw? The dreadnoughts are pretty much akin to land battleships and since they are pretty much hovercraft, they should be able to move over water too. In which case actual naval battleships become redundant... so i guess ultimately dreadnoughts wont be able to move over water surface... which wont make much sense. But since its in the interest of gameplay, i am sure some technobabble excuse will be found swiftly, why they cant go over water.

How do you expect them justify naval units in the game now, with your mindset, btw? The dreadnoughts are pretty much akin to land battleships and since they are pretty much hovercraft, they should be able to move over water too. In which case actual naval battleships become redundant... so i guess ultimately dreadnoughts wont be able to move over water surface... which wont make much sense. But since its in the interest of gameplay, i am sure some technobabble excuse will be found swiftly, why they cant go over water.

Agree with this. Who cares as to why boats would be needed? Does it really matter why the antigravity engines (that don't exist in real life) can't hover over water?

That's just story, and not the point.. not really.

("My atomic microjets use organic components to transform magnetic amplitude, but the organic parts are all cloned from an organism that was allergic to hydrogen, making them dysfunction when they try to operate over bodies of water" .. Yeah sure, whatever... )

The real issue, in my opinion, is that Naval is scratching against an experiential design issue -- and this is probably the reason I am so opposed to naval.

... just more oblong ships that slide along and go *zap.*

Yay.

I mean, you want boats? Yeah, sure, fine. But I would love to see something DIFFERENT. And by this I mean experientially different.

The stuff from Supreme Commander just looks so COOL. (and no, I don't really care if land stalkers way out in space would actually be technically feasible or plausible in terms of physics; this is NOT the point)

When there are other areas that likewise need love (like Unit AI)... well, more oblong ships sliding along and going zap simply doesn't light me up... The game already does this pretty well.

The other option is to leave the hovering units in, and make a whole new class of ground-based vehicles that are tougher than their hovering equivalents, but cannot traverse water, along with boats that will easily outperform hovering ships. With a second option being a third race that doesn't use hovering vehicles at all, and thus always needs to use proper warships.

The other option is to leave the hovering units in, and make a whole new class of ground-based vehicles that are tougher than their hovering equivalents, but cannot traverse water, along with boats that will easily outperform hovering ships. With a second option being a third race that doesn't use hovering vehicles at all, and thus always needs to use proper warships.

Something, something... get space boats in there... something... one way or another...

The other option is to leave the hovering units in, and make a whole new class of ground-based vehicles that are tougher than their hovering equivalents, but cannot traverse water, along with boats that will easily outperform hovering ships. With a second option being a third race that doesn't use hovering vehicles at all, and thus always needs to use proper warships.

Something, something... get space boats in there... something... one way or another...

Heh.

Both would be decent ways to handle... if it must happen.

I hope differentiation ends up more than just speed, though.

I'll be honest, I'm stealing the idea from Total Annihilation (Supreme Commander's predecessor), which had separate classes for Vehicles and K-Bots (Walkers). They had roles that over-lapped slightly, but the K-Bots were typically slower, but heavier armed and armored, whereas Vehicles were typically quicker and cheaper. I'm just picturing that system being applied to Ashes so as not to waste the pre-existing roles of hovering vehicles in the game.